AC 2655; (July, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 2655 July 9, 1987
LEONARD W. RICHARDS, complainant, vs. ATTY. PATRICIO A. ASOY, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Leonard W. Richards, an Australian national, retained respondent Atty. Patricio A. Asoy as counsel for a civil damages case before the Pasay City RTC. The agreement included a P15,000.00 acceptance fee, fully paid by Richards. Richards later permanently relocated to Australia. The trial court dismissed the case twice for “lack of interest and/or failure to prosecute” due to Asoy’s non-appearance at scheduled hearings despite due notice. The first dismissal was reinstated upon Asoy’s motion, but the second dismissal became final.
Richards filed administrative complaints. The Supreme Court required Asoy to comment, but he failed to respond and evaded service of court resolutions, leading to his preventive suspension from law practice in November 1985. Only after his suspension did Asoy surface, filing a motion for reconsideration. The Court then directed the Bar Confidant to formalize the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Patricio A. Asoy should be held administratively liable for his professional conduct.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ordered Atty. Asoy’s disbarment. The legal logic is anchored on his gross violation of fundamental duties as a lawyer. First, he breached his fiduciary duty to his client. By repeatedly failing to attend court hearings despite notice, which directly caused the dismissal of his client’s case, Asoy exhibited gross negligence and abandoned his client’s cause, violating his oath to serve with fidelity. His excuses—the client’s move abroad and personal difficulties—were untenable; as retained counsel, the duty to diligently prosecute the case remained his primary obligation regardless of his client’s location.
Second, he violated his duty to the Court as an officer of the judicial system. His failure to file the required comment and his evasion of court processes demonstrated contemptuous disregard for judicial authority. His appearance only after being suspended confirmed a pattern of disrespect. Such conduct undermines the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice. Consequently, for malpractice and violation of his lawyer’s oath, disbarment is the appropriate penalty. The Court also ordered him to reimburse Richards P16,300.00, representing the substantiated acceptance fee and an additional payment, as restitution for the pecuniary loss caused by his gross negligence.